Re: Theftlink?

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "Just JT" <JohnnyThor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:48394577$0$4758$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Just JT" <JohnnyThor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:48393ec3$0$5229$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As for 110 km/h being adequate, adequate for who?
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Those roads were designed for 110kph.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The layout for the majority of Australian roads was determined 
>>> back in the 1800's, when horse and cart was the common mode of 
>>> trans****t.
>>> I don't recall seeing a horse and cart travelling unassisted at
110km/h 
>>> lately.......
>>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> The surface and width have been improved since then....
>
> And? That doesn't alter the fact that the layout, which is a key
component 
> of the design, was NOT specified to cope with 110km/h.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Layout is just one component.


>> You.clearly.have.no.knowledge.of.road.design.
>
> Quite a bit more than you it would seem. Or are you actually stupid
enough 
> to think that layout does not form a key component of the overall
design?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Layout is just one component.

--
You.won't.fish.knowledge.from.me.oh.clueless.one.bwahahahahawwwrrr!!!